Back
Rules Cannot Be Conditional On In Gurmeet Singh Case
Justice Sanjeev Narula sets aside both the original order and the subsequent cancellation, holding that financial arrangements cannot replace the required under .
The has firmly reiterated that the grant or cannot be made conditional upon the fulfilment of a between the accused and the complainant. Justice Sanjeev Narula, in a detailed order dated , set aside two orders passed by the in a bank fraud case involving Gurmeet Singh @ Harpreet Singh – one granting on the basis of a settlement and the other cancelling it for non-compliance with that settlement.
The Case: A Loan, Forged Documents, and a Settlement
The case originated from an FIR registered in by the , Delhi, alleging that Gurmeet Singh had fraudulently obtained a cash-credit facility of ₹50 lakh from in the name of his proprietorship firm, . The prosecution claimed the facility was secured using forged documents and a guarantee purportedly executed by one Kewal Krishan Abrol, who had died in 2013.
Gurmeet Singh was arrested in
. In
, the
granted him regular
, recording a
that a settlement had been reached: ₹45 lakh had already been paid, and the petitioner undertook to repay the remaining amount within six months.
was granted
"in view of the settlement"
and subject to the condition that the petitioner adhere to its terms.
When no further payments were made, PNB moved for . The allowed the application in , holding that the petitioner had failed to comply with the settlement condition.
The Legal Challenge: Can a Monetary Determine Liberty?
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that both orders were legally unsustainable. Relying on the 's decision in , his counsel submitted that cannot be granted or cancelled based on a compromise or its breach. The Bank countered that the petitioner had voluntarily offered the settlement and obtained on that , and therefore could not retain the benefit while discarding the obligation.
Justice Narula framed the narrow question:
"could an
to repay take the place of the considerations that ordinarily govern
, and could its breach, without anything more, justify taking that liberty away?"
"The
Displaced the
"
The Court found that the original order suffered from a fundamental defect. There was no assessment of the standard considerations – the nature of the accusations, the , , , , or any other relevant factor. Instead, the settlement and payment became the effective basis for granting .
"The application was not examined on the considerations that ordinarily inform the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 439 of the
... In substance, the
displaced the
which the application required,"
the Court observed.
Similarly, the cancellation order was unsustainable. The Court noted there was no finding that after release the petitioner had absconded, tampered with evidence, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise abused his liberty.
"Cancellation followed because the settlement was not performed,"
it said.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"A financial may undoubtedly carry consequences between the parties... What it cannot do, without more, is turn custody into a means of enforcing a . The two questions are legally distinct: whether a settlement is enforceable between the parties is one matter; whether an may be is quite another."
The Court drew on a series of precedents to reinforce this principle. In , the held that a condition requiring payment of money allegedly cheated creates the impression that can be secured by depositing such money. In , the Court deprecated the practice of accused persons voluntarily offering deposits to secure , thereby bypassing a . The position was further clarified in , where the directed that no court shall grant on an furnished by the accused; the plea must be strictly decided on merits.
The Court's Directions:
Setting aside both orders, the High Court directed that the application be restored to the file of the for fresh consideration on its own merits. The settlement, the ₹45 lakh payment, and the alleged breach shall not, by themselves, constitute grounds for either granting or refusing . The petitioner's liberty cannot be made conditional upon fulfilment of any monetary obligation arising from the settlement.
The has been directed to consider the application expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, having regard to the nature and gravity of accusations, the material attributed to the petitioner, the stage of proceedings, his conduct during the period of liberty, and other relevant factors.
Until the fresh decision, the enjoyed by Gurmeet Singh will continue, subject to conditions requiring his participation in trial, appearance when required, and not influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The ₹45 Lakh Question
On the amount already paid by the petitioner pursuant to the settlement, the Court consciously refrained from issuing any direction for its refund. However, it observed that it would be open to the petitioner to seek such a direction at the time of the fresh hearing, and the shall consider the request in accordance with law.
Implications
The judgment serves as a strong reminder that the criminal justice system is not a tool for . jurisprudence, the Court emphasised, must remain anchored to the parameters laid down in – not to private financial arrangements, however well-intentioned they may appear.
